DMK Hypocrisy

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s scathing attack on the DMK in the Lok Sabha over the language row has reignited the debate on the party’s long-standing claims as the guardian of Tamil identity. Her remarks, pointing out the apparent contradiction in the DMK’s stance, hold a mirror to the party’s historical inconsistencies.

At a time when the National Education Policy (NEP) is being actively debated in Parliament, language politics has once again taken centre stage. The NEP aims to promote multilingual education while also ensuring the preservation of regional languages. However, the DMK’s opposition to the policy appears to be driven more by political posturing than genuine concern for Tamil. If the party is truly committed to linguistic and cultural preservation, why does it continue to idolise an individual who, as Sitharaman pointed out, had once referred to Tamil as a “barbaric” language incapable of even aiding beggars? This statement, delivered in a fiery speech, struck at the very foundation of the DMK’s political narrative, which has long been built on linguistic pride and Tamil identity.

The Dravidian movement, from which the DMK draws its ideological roots, has historically championed Tamil linguistic and cultural supremacy. However, the party’s veneration of a leader who disparaged the Tamil language exposes a deep contradiction. The DMK, which has repeatedly accused the BJP of linguistic imposition, particularly with regard to Hindi, must answer whether its own ideological forebears truly upheld the Tamil cause or merely used it as a convenient political tool.

This is not the first time that I have questioned the DMK’s linguistic politics. The party has often accused the Centre of attempting to impose Hindi, but its own record on linguistic purity is far from unblemished. Political convenience has played a role in shaping its rhetoric, adapting its stance based on electoral compulsions rather than genuine commitment to Tamil linguistic pride. Meanwhile, the NEP offers an opportunity to safeguard and promote Tamil without undermining national unity, something the DMK has chosen to ignore in its blanket opposition to the policy.

While the BJP and DMK continue to spar over the language issue, it is ultimately the people of Tamil Nadu who must demand accountability from their leaders. If Tamil pride is truly at the heart of the DMK’s political ethos, then it must confront its past and provide a clear explanation. Otherwise, Sitharaman’s charge of hypocrisy will continue to resonate, undermining the very foundation of the DMK’s linguistic politics.

The language debate should not be a mere political weapon wielded during elections but a sincere commitment to cultural and linguistic preservation. If Tamil identity is to be safeguarded, then political parties must move beyond convenient rhetoric and adopt a more consistent and genuine approach. The NEP presents a framework to do just that, but the question remains: will the DMK engage constructively, or will it continue to exploit linguistic sentiment for political gains?